DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The preliminary amendment filed on 9/23/2025 is acknowledged. Accordingly, claims 13-14 have been cancelled, claims 1-12 and 15 have been amended, and claim 16 has been newly added. Currently claims 1-12 and 15-16 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-12 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “microstructure smaller than 100mm” in claim 1 is used by the claim to mean, structures in the micrometer range including less than 100 mm, while the accepted meaning is a structure in the micrometer range and smaller than 1mm. The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term.
For purpose of examination, the phrase has been interpreted to mean -- structure smaller than 100mm --.
Claims 2-12 and 15-16 are rejected as they depend from claim 1
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-10 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wince et al. (US 3275822 A, hereinafter, “Wince”, cited by the Applicant in IDS filed on 9/23/2025).
Regarding claim 1, Wince teaches a luminaire (luminaire 10, see figures 1-13) for suspended mounting (suspended from a ceiling surface, see col 1, lines 17-19) comprising a housing (refractor 14, see fig 2); and
an elongate light source (linear fluorescent lamp 16, see fig 2) housed within the housing (14), the housing (14) comprising:
a first side wall (one side 20);
a second side wall (another side 20): and
a base (rectangular bottom 18, see fig 1) connected to the first and second side walls (the one and the another 20),
wherein the first side wall (one side 20) and the second side wall (another side 20) extend substantially above the base (18) and, wherein:
a volume (see volume enclosed by 20s and 18, not labeled but evident from fig 2) bound by the first side wall (one side 20), the second side wall (another side 20) and the base (18) defines an interior (see open interior of 14, better seen in fig 2) of the housing (14);
light emitted by the elongate light source (16), is received at an interior surface of the base (inner surface of 18) that faces the interior of the housing (inner volume of 14); and
an exterior surface of the base (outer surface of 18), facing away from the interior of the housing (inner volume of 14), comprises a plurality of microstructures (plurality of cutoff cones 28, see fig 2) that each extend away from the interior of the housing (inner volume of 14) for redirecting a portion of light (at least one of the light rays emitted by 16 and received by 28, see fig 2) received at the interior surface of the base (inner surface of 18) from the elongate light source (16), back into the interior (see at least one light ray being reflected by 28 and returned into the interior of 14) of the housing (inner volume of 14);
wherein the plurality of microstructures (28) are structures on a small scale (as seen in fig 2) that are able to redirect and/or reflect light incident thereon (see redirected and/or reflected light rays, as seen in fig 2);
the luminaire (10) characterized in that:
the housing (14) is an integrally formed housing (14): the first side wall (one side 20) and the second side wall (another side 20) are flat (evident from figure 2) and are configured to transmit (as seen in fig 2) light received from the base (18);
the portion of light (at least one of the light rays emitted by 16 and received by 28, see fig 2) is that portion of light at an angle of incidence of more than 45 degrees (necessarily occurring, as Wince elongated light source is a fluorescent light tube that emit light in all directions, and consequently at least a portion of the light reaching the base will make an angle of incidence of 45% or more with the base interior) with the interior surface of the base (inner surface of 18);
the housing (14) further comprising a light source coupling element (12), extending above the base (18), the light source coupling element (12) connected to the first side wall (one side 20) and the second side wall (another side 20), the light source coupling element (12) configured to couple the integrally formed housing (14) to the elongate light source (16), wherein the light source coupling element (12) comprises a supporting structure (126) having an aperture (see aperture of 126, not labeled but better seen in fig 5) to receive the elongate light source (16) to thereby allow mechanical coupling of the light source (16) to the integrally formed housing (14).
Wince does not explicitly teach the microstructure is smaller than 100 mm.
However, one of ordinary skill would have noted the dimensions of the micro structures relative to at least one of the elements of the luminaire, such as the fluorescent light tube, and recognized the microstructures are fairly small, even smaller than 100 mm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filled date of the claimed invention to provide microstructures smaller than 100 mm into the teachings of Wince in order to provide smother light diffusion. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification to avoid glare or uneven illumination.
Wince does not explicitly teach the first side wall and the second side wall are configured to transmit no less than 75% of light received from the base.
However, one of ordinary skill would have recognized the portion of light being redirected has not been defined and may include any amount of light including transmitting more than 75% of the light ray.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filled date of the claimed invention to provide side walls transparent enough to capable of transmitting no less than 75% of light received from the base into the teachings of Wince in order to enhance light output. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification to avoid light losses.
Regarding claim 2, Wince teaches wherein the first side wall (one side 20) is connected to the base (18) by a first curved connection portion (see curved edge between 18 and the one 20); and the second side wall (another side 20) is connected to the base (18) by a second curved connection portion (see the other curved edge between 18 and the another 20).
Regarding claim 3, Wince does not explicitly teach wherein the radius of curvature of each of the first curved connection portion and the second curved connection portion is no less than 4mm.
However, one of ordinary skill would have recognized larger radius of curvature provide a softer light transition from downwards emission to horizontal emission, including curvatures larger than 4 mm.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to provide a radius of curvature no less than 4 mm into the teachings of Wince, since the applicant has not disclosed that a specific radius of curvature solves any problem or is for a particular reason. It appears that the claimed invention would perform equally well with a radius of curvature no less than 4 mm. In this case, selecting a given radius of curvature would have flown naturally to one of ordinary skill in the art as necessitated by the specific requirements of a given application.
Regarding claim 4, Wince does not explicitly teach wherein the plurality of microstructures are configured to redirect no less than 15% of light received at the interior surface of the base towards the interior of the integrally formed housing.
However, one of ordinary skill would have considered the device goals to provide even illumination in all directions which includes choosing a percentage of light redirection, including 15% percent of light redirected sideways.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to set the amount of light redirection to no less than 15% towards the interior of Wince’s device, since the applicant has not disclosed that a specific percentage of light redirection solves any problem or is for a particular reason. It appears that the claimed invention would perform equally well with a 15% or larger percentage of light redirection. In this case, selecting a given percentage would have flown naturally to one of ordinary skill in the art as necessitated by the specific requirements of a given application.
Regarding claim 5, Wince teaches wherein the plurality of microstructures (28) are configured to redirect (via reflection sideways and refraction downwards) substantially all light received (from 16) at the interior surface of the base (inner surface of 18) and having an angle of incidence greater than 65° (as the light source is a fluorescent light tube where light is emitted in all direction , and reaching the base in all directions, including at angles greater than 65°) with respect to the interior surface (inner surface of 14), towards the interior of the integrally formed housing (14).
Regarding claim 6, Wince teaches wherein the plurality of microstructures (28) comprises two or more microstructures (see plurality of 28s) that are each configured to have five or more surface (see at least six surfaces of each microstructure in fig 8, where the side surfaces are normal to the interior of 14) normals in directions away from the interior (interior of 14) of the of the integrally formed housing (14), each surface normal making a non-zero angle (about 90 degrees, as seen in fig 8) with respect to each other surface normal (surface of 18).
Regarding claim 7, Wince teaches wherein the plurality of microstructures (28) comprises two or more microstructures (28) having a domed, conical (hexagonal based cones, as seen in fig 8), half-sphere or truncated-spherical shape, pyramidal or facetted dome.
Regarding claim 8, Wince teaches wherein the plurality of microstructures (28) comprises two or more microstructures (see at least two 28s) shaped as a triangular prism (triangular profile is better seen in fig 2).
Regarding claim 9, Wince does not explicitly teach wherein the integrally formed housing is configured to absorb less than 5% of light incident thereon.
However, one of ordinary skill would have recognized the goal of any luminaire is to emit most light, and thus absorbing the least amount, including a 5 % of absorption.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filled date of the claimed invention to provide Wince with a housing capable of absorbing less than 5% of light in order to enhance light emission. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification to avoid light losses.
Regarding claim 10, Wince teaches wherein the integrally formed housing (14) is an extruded integrally formed housing (as 14 is integrally molded, see col 2, lines 1-2).
Regarding claim 15, Wince teaches wherein the aperture (aperture of 126) extends (width wise, as expected from a fluorescent light source socket) in the direction (towards the length of 16) of the elongate light source (16) such that the elongate light source (16) able to be supported or coupled along the length (length of 16) of the elongate light source (16).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wince in view of Chang Shao-Han (US 20120155072 A1, hereinafter, “Chang”).
Regarding claim 11, Wince does not teach wherein the elongate light source is a tubular LED.
Chang teaches an elongated light source (LED tube lamp 100, see figures 1- 4);
wherein the elongate light source (100) is a tubular LED (as seen in fig 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filled date of the claimed invention to provide Wince with the elongated light source of Chang since LEDs are recognized in the illumination art to have many desirable advantages over other light sources. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification because of LED’s reduced size, high efficiency, low power consumption, long life, resistance to vibrations, faster reaction times.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wince in view of Kabawata et al. (WO 2010058808 A1, hereinafter, “Kabawata”).
Regarding claim 12, Wince does not teach wherein the elongate light source comprises a plurality of linearly positioned LEDs or LED arrays, wherein a pitch between each LED or LED array is less than 10mm.
Kawabata teaches an elongate light source (LED lamp A10, see figure 18);
wherein the elongate light source (A10) comprises a plurality of linearly positioned LEDs (see LEDs positioned linearly) or LED arrays, wherein a pitch (pitch P1) between each LED or LED array is less than 10mm (3.6 mm).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filled date of the claimed invention to incorporate the pitch as taught by Kawabata into the teachings of Wince in order to equalize the spacings between LEDs. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification to avoid dark spots caused by uneven pitches between LEDs.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wince in view of Petersohn et al. (US 20120224382 A1, hereinafter, “Petersohn”).
Regarding claim 16, Wince does not explicitly teach wherein at least one of the width, height, and length of a microstructure of the plurality of microstructures is in the region of between 0.1 mm and 10 mm.
Petersohn teaches an elongate light source (LED lamp A10, see figure 18);
wherein at least one of the width, height (height H1, see fig 1), and length of a microstructure (11) of the plurality of microstructures (11s) is in the region of between 0.1 mm and 10 mm (between 0.1 to 0.3 mm, see ¶ 46).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filled date of the claimed invention to incorporate the microstructure height as taught by Petersohn into the teachings of Wince in order to control the amount of light emitted or refracted by the housing. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification to customize light refraction and reflection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OMAR ROJAS CADIMA whose telephone number is (571)272-8007. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9am-6pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Abdulmajeed Aziz can be reached at 571-270-5046. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/OMAR ROJAS CADIMA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Prosecution Insights